Is Mrs. Lovett a puppet-master? I've heard it said several times that she's the truly evil presence in Sweeney Todd, doing anything she can to bend Sweeney to her will. Angela Lansbury epitomizes this Lovett.

I've always simply believed that, far from being a mastermind, she's simply a solipsist- nothing but herself and her goals is real to her. Like Nietzche and Ayn Rand, her ends justify her means. She has no devious plot, but things like robbing the dead, misleading a troubled man, and even coercing the town into cannibalism are simply "business" to her. This is Helena Bonham Carter's Lovett.

Consider the different interpretations of the "locking Toby in" scene. Angela lures him in with tenderness, then traps him ruthlessly. Helena has obvious regret for what she does to the child, but does it anyway because it's him or her that time, and Lovett has to stay safe.

_________________"I LOVE incarceration,
I could lock up a platoon,
I'll be strapping up an inmate,
Very tightly, very soon.
So wave one bachelor goodbye,
She'll be your bride- she'd rather die
Than have her daddy ossify
In my sordid saloon..."

I agree with you. Also, with Angela, her love for Mr. Todd was very subdued, arguable even. With Helena it was OBVIOUS and written all over her face in near every scene. Just another reason I love her.

_________________Have the lambs stopped screaming, Clarisse?

Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:04 am

Jester-Jester Johnson

Supporting Player

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:23 pmPosts: 109Location: McKeesport, PA

Judy kaye's Lovett is another good example as a woman who will do whatever necessary for personal gain.

_________________As for myself, I am simply Hop-Frog the jester- and this is my last jest.

Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:31 pm

Vichysois

Tony Winner

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:12 amPosts: 313Location: US

I feel that Mrs. Lovett as written is a combination of the two types you describe...with a little more weight lent to the profile you favor.

I also feel that calling her "evil" is dismissive, especially in Sweeney Todd which is a sophisticated social commentary. Lovett's got tinges of Machiavelli, yet she's also a caricature of a proletarian struggle as understood by Marxists. Plus she's wrestling with being a widow and having no children, not a respectable position. Also important is that while she's an enabler to Sweeney's murders, she doesn't have to coax him into killing. He already has that latent bloodlust. (Yes, she leads Sweeney to believe that Lucy's dead, but that doesn't change that Sweeney already had a murderous rage. If he had known Lucy was alive, it's not as if he would have settled down. This is part of the tragic arc...the end of the play is set in motion even before the action begins).

It is prudent to say that she is selfish, and that her actions throughout the play merely spring from that. But that merits more explanation.

Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:54 am

Monsieur D'Arque

Broadway Legend

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:42 pmPosts: 1816Location: Maison des Lunes

Well you've brought up an interesting point there- the Marxist commentary.

Is Sweeney Todd genuinely Marxist commentary, or is it a sublime example of the modern Shakespearean revenge tragedy? According to Sondheim and Christopher Bond, in the introduction to the Sweeney Todd annotated libretto, the Marxist read was tacked on by Hal Prince for the original production, while neither of them cared much for it. This is why the Marxist imagery and symbolism has largely disappeared from subsequent major productions of the show, including Sondheim's personally-approved film version, which pared it down to its roots in tragedy and Grand Guignol.

_________________"I LOVE incarceration,
I could lock up a platoon,
I'll be strapping up an inmate,
Very tightly, very soon.
So wave one bachelor goodbye,
She'll be your bride- she'd rather die
Than have her daddy ossify
In my sordid saloon..."

Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:33 am

Vichysois

Tony Winner

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:12 amPosts: 313Location: US

To a certain extent that's a debate in literary dramatic criticism: Can the author of a work truly dictate which are the appropriate readings of the text? That is, can we say that Sweeney Todd can't be read from a Marxist critical perspective because Sondheim and Bond don't like it?

I happen to believe that the text exists separately from the author as it is published. But still, the Marxist stuff to me serves better as an undercurrent to the narrative and meat of Sweeney Todd, which is more prominently the revenge tragedy.

Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:48 am

Monsieur D'Arque

Broadway Legend

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:42 pmPosts: 1816Location: Maison des Lunes

What I mean is, is the Marxism a "read" to the text, or is the whole text itself an allegory for such?

_________________"I LOVE incarceration,
I could lock up a platoon,
I'll be strapping up an inmate,
Very tightly, very soon.
So wave one bachelor goodbye,
She'll be your bride- she'd rather die
Than have her daddy ossify
In my sordid saloon..."

Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:13 am

Vichysois

Tony Winner

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:12 amPosts: 313Location: US

I'd favor it as a read, especially considering the multi-tiered narrative.

Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:29 am

le_moofin

Broadway Legend

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:52 pmPosts: 1043
Main Role: Performer

Vichysois wrote:

To a certain extent that's a debate in literary dramatic criticism: Can the author of a work truly dictate which are the appropriate readings of the text? That is, can we say that Sweeney Todd can't be read from a Marxist critical perspective because Sondheim and Bond don't like it?

I happen to believe that the text exists separately from the author as it is published. But still, the Marxist stuff to me serves better as an undercurrent to the narrative and meat of Sweeney Todd, which is more prominently the revenge tragedy.

I completely agree with this. Even if Sondheim and Bond don't like it, if the evidence/textual support for Marxist undercurrents are there, then one can interpret them.

As for Mrs. Lovett... it may be because I've never had the privilege of seeing Sweeney Todd on stage, but I do prefer HBC's "the ends justify the means" interpretation rather than a "Mrs. Lovett is pure evil, end of story" one. I think it makes her a more interesting character that way.

I understand that it CAN be read as such, but I was asking if we thought it was integral.

Case in point- two examples.

A: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe may be a fantasy novel on its surface, but beneath all that, it is an allegory for Christian moral struggles and the tenacity of belief and good. It is nearly impossible to read the novel without this undercurrent informing the plot.

B: The Wizard of Oz has ambiguously been seen as an allegory for several things, most notably the Populist movement in American politics and the burgeoning field of psychology. However, none of these are definitively accepted reads, and you choose them from the story at your own perspective. On its own, the story is "Just a story."

Which of these is Sweeney Todd?

_________________"I LOVE incarceration,
I could lock up a platoon,
I'll be strapping up an inmate,
Very tightly, very soon.
So wave one bachelor goodbye,
She'll be your bride- she'd rather die
Than have her daddy ossify
In my sordid saloon..."

As for Mrs. Lovett... it may be because I've never had the privilege of seeing Sweeney Todd on stage, but I do prefer HBC's "the ends justify the means" interpretation rather than a "Mrs. Lovett is pure evil, end of story" one. I think it makes her a more interesting character that way.

Actually, HBC's interpretation is my least favorite. Lansbury's has many, many more layers to it and a lot more depth. LuPone's is arguably worse than HBC but with how much the latter let me down in the movie it's hard for me to say that.

_________________

Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:38 pm

le_moofin

Broadway Legend

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:52 pmPosts: 1043
Main Role: Performer

ActingDude17 wrote:

le_moofin wrote:

As for Mrs. Lovett... it may be because I've never had the privilege of seeing Sweeney Todd on stage, but I do prefer HBC's "the ends justify the means" interpretation rather than a "Mrs. Lovett is pure evil, end of story" one. I think it makes her a more interesting character that way.

Actually, HBC's interpretation is my least favorite. Lansbury's has many, many more layers to it and a lot more depth. LuPone's is arguably worse than HBC but with how much the latter let me down in the movie it's hard for me to say that.

I think HBC's interpretation is great... for film, that is. I do agree that onstage her subtle approach wouldn't work at all. I think I kinda posted ambiguously - what I mean is that I prefer an interpretation of Mrs. Lovett that doesn't make her out to be the puppetmaster/pure evil character that was suggested earlier. I think Lansbury's Lovett also shared some of that ruthlessness that I so admire in Lovett (well, not admire but appreciate). I think it's almost a cop-out to say that Mrs. Lovett is pure evil because it simplifies her character so much.